Hartzell Feature

Document Sample
Hartzell Feature Powered By Docstoc
					EM Feature
EM          Feature

 EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program
 evaluates the performance of innovative air, water, pollution
 prevention, and monitoring technologies. This multimedia
 program aims to reduce uncertainty and increase confidence
 in the performance of technologies that have the potential to
 improve human health and the environment. This article
 summarizes the program’s goals and accomplishments.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established
the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program in
1995 to verify the performance of innovative environmental
technologies that can be used to monitor, prevent, control,
and clean up pollution. The program was formed to address
the need for credible performance data to help businesses and
communities better respond to the available environmental
technology choices.1
    Since its inception, the ETV program has become one of
the most comprehensive environmental technology verifica-
tion programs in the world, covering innovations as diverse
as alternative fuels and systems for nitrogen oxides reduction;
microturbines and leak-prevention technologies for natural
gas pipelines; cryptosporidium and arsenic control in small
community drinking water systems; pollution prevention tech-
nologies; and monitoring and treatment technologies with
homeland security applications for protecting water resources
and buildings.
    The goal of this voluntary, multimedia program is to provide
credible, high-quality data on the performance of innovative com-   listserv of approximately 2500 subscribers. These notices con-
mercial environmental technologies. By providing these data to      tain information about recent events, verifications, and other
technology purchasers, permitters, financiers, vendors, and the     ETV news. In addition, the program conducts extensive out-
public, EPA hopes to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the per-    reach of verification results via conference exhibitions and
formance of new technology, lower the overall cost of regulatory    presentations, publications in trade journals, press advis-
compliance, and help remove real and perceived barriers to          ories and media events, and information diffusion through
innovative technology use in today’s marketplace.2                  ETV stakeholders.

The ETV program has achieved many accomplishments since                                ETV’s Goals
its inception in 1995. As of March 2004, the program has devel-        ✔   To provide credible, high-quality data on the
oped 78 testing protocols and completed 261 technology veri-               performance of promising commercial-ready
fications across a broad range of technology categories. Figure 1          environmental technologies to technology
summarizes the verifications by technology area/media.                     purchasers, permitters, financiers, vendors,
     All of ETV’s products, including protocols, test/quality-             and the public.
assurance plans, and verification reports and statements, are
available on the ETV Web site ( This Web              ✔   To accelerate the entrance of new environ-
site receives more than 100,000 hits per month, approximately              mental technologies into the domestic and
10% of which are from international entities. ETV also sends               international marketplace.
out monthly electronic notices using ETVoice, the program’s

34     EM    May 2004
                                                                                                          private testing and
                                                                                                          evaluation organiza-
                                                                                                          tions listed in Table 1.
                                                                                                          These verification or-
                                                                                                          ganizations (VOs)—
                                                                                                          with input from the
                                                                                                          vendors and EPA tech-
                                                                                                          nology experts—de-
                                                                                                          velop efficient and
                                                                                                          quality-assured proto-
                                                                                                          cols and test plans for
                                                                                                          verifying technology
                                                                                                          performance. They are
                                                                                                          responsible for plan-
                                                                                                          ning and performing
                                                                                                          the verification tests,
                                                                                                          as well as developing
                                                                                                          verification reports
                                                                                                          and statements des-
Figure 1. ETV verifications by area/media (1996–2004).                                                    igned to communi-
                                                                                                          cate test results to
    The ETV program has received national recognition, in-        decision-makers and the public. EPA provides oversight of
cluding commendations from the National Advisory Council          the VOs and the verification tests, ultimately assuring the
for Environmental Policy and Technology and EPA’s indepen-        credibility of the program as a whole, including the verifi-
dent Science Advisory Board (SAB). SAB stated in its review of    cation process and data.1
ETV, “The scarcity of independent and credible technology             In addition to EPA and the VOs, the program relies on
verification information is one critical barrier to the use of    the active participation of environmental technology in-
innovative environmental technologies. Therefore, the verifi-     formation customers in technology-specific stakeholder
cation testing information provided by the ETV program            groups. Stakeholders are chosen for their general knowledge
fulfills an essential need of the environmental technology        and expertise in specific technology areas. They represent
marketplace.”3                                                    the interests of technology developers; technology buyers;
    Vendors also report that they use ETV information in mar-     consulting groups; financial interests; industry associations;
keting their performance-verified products. More than 80%         public interest groups; and federal, state, and local govern-
of the vendors surveyed during the program’s pilot period         ments. ETV stakeholder groups assist in developing testing
(1995–2000) rated their overall experience with ETV as posi-      protocols, prioritizing the types of the technologies to be
tive, and more than 90% said that they would recommend            verified, reviewing documents, and designing and imple-
ETV to others.4 There is also a growing interest in the program   menting outreach activities to the customer groups they
from international vendors; ETV has verified the performance      represent. By partnering with more than 800 stakeholders
of 30 technologies developed by 22 vendors from outside the       in numerous stakeholder groups, the ETV program is able
United States. The program is also being used as a model by       to ensure that relevant, high-quality, objective information is
various international organizations interested in establishing    provided to the environmental technology marketplace.1,2
similar verification programs.                                        Vendors, private-sector entities, and federal, state, and
                                                                  local government agencies share costs with EPA to complete
STRUCTURE                                                         priority ETV protocols and verifications. Since 1996, ETV ven-
The ETV program operates through six verification centers         dors have contributed more than $3.8 million to verifica-
and one pilot program, as well as separate efforts aimed at       tion. From 2001 to 2002, ETV funding contributions from
verifying technologies for monitoring and treatment of in-        other organizations increased 370%, and funding from ven-
tentional contaminants in buildings and public spaces. This       dors increased 52% as a percentage of program expenditures.
program structure allows for the verification of a wide spec-     From 2002 to 2003, vendor contributions increased from
trum of environmental technologies, as illustrated in Table       approximately $696,000 to more than $1 million. Verifica-
1. The program operates as a public–private partnership           tion testing “in-kind” contributions, which include things
through agreements between EPA and the five nonprofit             such as laboratory and test facilities and analytical support,

                                                                                                             May 2004   EM     35
EM            Feature

 Table 1. ETV structure.

 Center/Pilot/Effort                       Verification Organization                      Technology Areas/Media

 ETV Advanced Monitoring                   Battelle                                       • Air, water, and soil monitoring
 Systems Center                                                                           • Biological and chemical agent detection in water
 ETV Air Pollution Control                 RTI International                              • Air pollution control
 Technology Center
 ETV Drinking Water                        NSF International                              • Drinking water treatment
 Systems Center                                                                           • Biological and chemical agent water treatment
 ETV Greenhouse Gas                        SRI                                            • Greenhouse gas mitigation and monitoring
 Technology Center
 ETV Water Quality                         NSF International                              • Stormwater and wastewater control and treatment
 Protection Center                                                                        • Biological and chemical agent wastewater treatment
 ETV Building Decontamination              Battelle                                       • Biological and chemical agent decontamination
 Technology Center                                                                             of buildings and surfaces
 ETV Safe Buildings Monitoring             Battelle                                       • Biological and chemical agent detection and monitoring
 and Detection Technology Effort                                                                in buildings and on surfaces
 ETV Safe Buildings Air Filtration         RTI International                              • Building air filtration and cleaning
 and Cleaning Technology Effort
 ETV Pollution Prevention (P2)             Concurrent Technologies Corporation            • Pollution prevention for coatings
 Coatings and Coating Equipment Pilot

have also increased over the life of the program.                           the performance of building and ventilation products for
    Participation in the ETV program is strictly voluntary—                 homeland security applications.
no vendor is required to submit a technology for verifica-                      Currently, the APCT Center is verifying a number of
tion. No approvals are granted, and no guarantees or                        mobile source and dust-suppression technologies, while the
recommendations are made by ETV. The program sponsors                       GHG Center is concentrating its efforts on the verification
the evaluation of environmental technologies through rigor-                 of fuel cells, microturbines, biogas technologies, universal
ous and objective testing, and verifies that such technologies              cams, and axle lubricants. ETV’s current focus on biogas and
perform at the levels reported. By “evaluate” and “verify,” ETV             mobile source technologies is particularly relevant to a number
means the careful examination and testing of technologies                   of high-profile regulatory and environmental issues, as well
under conditions of observation and analysis and under spe-                 as growing markets in both areas. By verifying building fil-
cific, predetermined criteria or protocols. ETV does not certify            tration and cleaning technologies, ETV is also responding to
technologies. High-quality data, responsive to customer needs,              a critical information need identified for the post–9/11 era.
are ETV’s product. ETV seeks to give decision-makers the in-                The importance of ETV’s efforts in these areas is discussed in
formation they need to make informed technology choices                     more detail below.
and to create a more sustainable environment.2
                                                                            Mobile Source and Biogas Technologies. The control of
CURRENT FOCUS                                                               mobile source emissions continues to be a national issue,
                               Air                                          in part because certain areas of the country are not in attain-
Two ETV centers, the Greenhouse Gas Technology (GHG) Cen-                   ment with ambient air quality standards. Technologies that
ter and the Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Center,                 harness biogas from livestock manure management
focus exclusively on verifying air-related technologies. The GHG            facilities are also of growing interest to the energy, agricul-
Center verifies promising greenhouse gas mitigation and moni-               tural, and regulatory communities. Technology vendors
toring technologies through a partnership with Southern Research            have responded to this interest by developing a number of
Institute (SRI). The APCT Center addresses control technologies             new mobile source and biogas technologies. Both the APCT
for both stationary and mobile air pollution sources through                and GHG centers are at the forefront of these environmental
a partnership with RTI International. The APCT Center’s main                issues, and are verifying the performance of applicable
focus is on technologies that control particulate matter, vola-             technologies to the benefit of both the vendors and purchasing/
tile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and hazardous air                  permitting communities.
pollutants. In a related effort, RTI International is verifying                 In accordance with ETV’s commitment to partnerships, both

36       EM    May 2004
                                                                                                           for gaseous contaminants,
                                                                                                           are expected to be tested
                                                                                                           later in the year.5

                                                                                                          The ETV program partners
                                                                                                          with NSF International in
                                                                                                          the management of two
                                                                                                          centers that focus exclu-
                                                                                                          sively on the verification of
                                                                                                          water technologies: the
                                                                                                          Drinking Water System
                                                                                                          (DWS) Center and the
                                                                                                          Water Quality Protection
                                                                                                          (WQP) Center. The DWS
                                                                                                          Center verifies drinking
                                                                                                          water systems for the treat-
                                                                                                          ment of contaminants with
                                                                                                          potential public health
                                                                                                          impacts, with a special
                                                                                                          emphasis on systems that
                                                                                                          address the treatment of
                                                                                                          common small community
The GHG Center verifies the fuel economy and emissions performance attributable to the use of a rear axle
                                                                                                          problems (i.e., arsenic, micro-
gear lubricant.
                                                                                                          biological contaminants, par-
                                                                                                          ticulates, and disinfection
centers received monetary and/or technical assistance from the        byproducts). The WQP Center verifies technologies that protect
following organizations during these verifications: New York          groundwater and surface water from contamination, including
State Energy Research and Development Authority and the Colo-         technologies that prevent contamination and maintain the qual-
rado Governors Office of Energy Management and Conserva-              ity of both groundwater and surface water supplies that may be
tion—GHG (biogas); EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air             used for drinking water sources, and control and treat the in-
Quality and the California Air Resources Board—APCT (mobile           creased volumes of storm water runoff during wet weather events.
sources). ETV partners also lend support by reviewing test plans,
helping coordinate testing activities, and providing onsite             Table 2. ETV partners.
technical assistance. Table 2 lists current ETV partnerships.
                                                                       ETV Partners                      Technology Areas
Safe Buildings Air Filtration and Cleaning Technologies.
Buildings that house the nation’s workforce and public meet-           U.S. National Oceanic and         Multiparameter water probes
ing places may be targets of future terrorist attacks. They            Atmospheric Administration
represent locations where hundreds or thousands of people              U.S. Coast Guard                  Ballast water treatment
congregate for employment, recreation, transportation,                 U.S. Department of Energy,        Continuous emission mercury monitors
                                                                       State of Massachusetts
shopping, or education during a typical day. ETV, through
                                                                       U.S. Department of Defense        Monitors for explosives; polychlorinated
an agreement with RTI International, is developing protocols
                                                                                                         biphenyls in soils; dust suppressants
and testing technologies used in building heating, ventila-
                                                                       U.S. Department of Agriculture    Ambient ammonia monitors
tion, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, for cleaning build-         U.S. EPA Natural Gas Star         Vapor recovery unit for the oil
ing ventilation air contaminated with chemical and biological                                            and gas industry
warfare agents. Ten verifications of ventilation air filters using     States of Alaska, Pennsylvania,   Drinking water arsenic treatment
uncharged media have recently been completed. Four addi-               and Nevada
tional air filters using uncharged media are scheduled to be           States of Georgia, Kentucky,       Stormwater treatment
tested in 2004. Devices based upon other air cleaning tech-            and Michigan
nologies, including electronic air cleaners, devices based on          States of New York and Colorado   Waste-to-energy technology
ultraviolet (UV) radiation or plasma, and sorption devices

                                                                                                                       May 2004        EM       37
EM          Feature

                                                                                                            contaminant level (MCL)
                                                                                                            from 50 to 10 parts per bil-
                                                                                                            lion (ppb) by 2006. At
                                                                                                            present, EPA estimates that
                                                                                                            4000 of the 74,000 U.S.
                                                                                                            drinking water systems cur-
                                                                                                            rently regulated by the new
                                                                                                            standard will have to install
                                                                                                            treatment devices or take
                                                                                                            other steps to comply with
                                                                                                            this MCL. These devices are
                                                                                                            also critically needed in
                                                                                                            countries such as India and
                                                                                                            Bangladesh, where shallow
                                                                                                            drinking water wells expose
                                                                                                            millions of people to arsenic
                                                                                                            poisoning from naturally
                                                                                                            contaminated groundwater.6,7
                                                                                                                To date, four arsenic
                                                                                                            treatment technologies have
                                                                                                            been verified by the DWS
                                                                                                            Center, and three verifica-
                                                                                                            tion tests are in process, with
An inside view of a stormwater treatment system being verified by the WQP Center.
                                                                                                            three others under consider-
                                                                                                            ation. As with other ETV ef-
NSF International is also developing protocols and testing tech-        forts, DWS worked to ensure that the final verification reports
nologies with applications to water security, including devices         are useful to local, state, and federal agencies and offices (e.g.,
for point-of-use (POU) treatment of biological and chemical con-        to support permit applications, regulatory programs, and vol-
taminants in drinking water, and technologies for treating waste-       untary programs). The results of a survey conducted by the
water resulting from the decontamination of buildings.5                 Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
    A wide array of technologies has been prioritized for verifi-       in 2003 (see sidebar opposite) provide evidence that ETV veri-
cation by these two centers. In 2004, DWS is focusing its efforts       fications and protocols are being used by the states.8
on verifying arsenic treatment technologies, diatomaceous                   The widespread acceptance of ETV test data by states has
earth filters, and reverse osmosis-based POU devices for home-          led to reduced costs for pilot testing; in some cases, significant
land security applications. WQP is currently in various stages          reductions. For example, a vendor of a disinfection by-prod-
of testing and reporting on a number of treatment, control,             uct treatment technology reported to ETV that pilot-testing
and rehabilitation technologies, including decentralized waste-         costs in excess of $60,000 per site were avoided at two small
water treatment systems for residential nutrient reduction, in-         communities in Alaska as a result of data available from the
frastructure rehabilitation technologies, watershed protection          ETV verification test.9 An arsenic treatment technology ven-
technologies (i.e., animal waste treatment), high-rate UV dis-          dor also reported that the amount of pilot testing needed for
infection technologies, flow meters, stormwater treatment,              state drinking water approval was significantly reduced after
high-rate solids separation, runoff collection models, and a            the states reviewed the ETV verification report.10
decontamination treatment system for water security applica-
tions. WQP is also developing a testing protocol, in collabora-         Nutrient Reduction Technologies. The reduction of nutrients
tion with the U.S. Coast Guard, to verify technologies designed         in domestic wastewater discharged from single-family homes,
to control invasive species in ballast water.                           small businesses, and similar locations within watersheds is
                                                                        important for two reasons: (1) reduction of watershed nitro-
Arsenic Treatment Technologies. ETV’s responsiveness to small           gen helps meet drinking water quality standards for nitrate and
communities and states is highlighted by its recent focus on            nitrite; and (2) reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus helps
the verification of arsenic treatment technologies. These tech-         protect surface and groundwater quality, and helps prevent
nologies are designed to help small communities comply                  eutrophication and subsequent ecological, commercial, recrea-
with the reduction of the arsenic drinking water maximum                tional, and aesthetic losses. The WQP Center recently verified

38     EM    May 2004
five on-site residential nutrient reduction systems designed to
                                                                       Table 3. ETV protocol use.
reduce nitrogen in domestic wastewater from individual resi-
dences; three additional residential nutrient reduction tech-            •   North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
nologies are expected to be verified in 2004.11                              specified Nutrient Reduction and Wastewater Treatment protocols for use in
    Not only are these verifications meeting an important in-                generating data for innovative wastewater treatment system installation requests.
formation need, the nutrient reduction protocols used to col-            •   Association of State Energy Research & Technology Transfer
lect these data—as well as the WQP wastewater treatment                      Institutions/U.S. Department of Energy plan to use ETV protocols in
protocols—have been specified by the North Carolina Depart-                  national standards.
                                                                         •   ASTM has adopted the ETV Generic Verification Protocol for Baghouse
ment of Environment and Natural Resources for use in gener-
                                                                             Filtration Products (October 2001) as a new ASTM Method (i.e., ASTM D6830
ating data for innovative wastewater treatment system
                                                                             “Characterizing the Pressure Drop and Filtration Performance of Cleanable
installation requests. Table 3 highlights the adoption and use
                                                                             Filter Media”).
of ETV protocols by different national and state organizations.
                                                                         •   Association of State Drinking Water Administrators reports that 26
                                                                             states are planning to use ETV Drinking Water System protocols and test plans
                           Monitoring                                        for surface water and groundwater systems applications.
Effective verification of monitoring technologies is needed to
assess environmental quality and to supply cost and perfor-
mance data to select the most appropriate technology for that         quality probes, portable water detectors for arsenic, portable
assessment. The Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center,             cyanide analyzers, rapid methods for pesticide (atrazine) detec-
operated through a partnership with Battelle Memorial Insti-          tion in water, rapid broad spectrum toxicity screening meth-
tute, verifies the performance of commercially available tech-        ods, immuno-assay screening methods for biotoxins in water,
nologies that monitor natural species and contaminants in air,        beach monitoring technologies, rapid polymerase chain reac-
water, and soil. In addition, AMS is verifying technologies that      tion screening methods, and enzymatic test kits for chemical
can detect and monitor intentional contamination of public            agents. Several of these areas are highlighted below.
drinking water supplies. The center is currently focusing its veri-
fication activities on a number of important technology areas,        Ambient Ammonia Sensors. Agricultural activities and waste
including ammonia continuous emission monitors (CEMs) for             from livestock are a significant source of atmospheric ammo-
gas turbine facilities, portable multigas emission analyzers, air-    nia, which can have adverse environmental and human health
borne ammonia sensors, mercury CEMs, multiparameter water             effects. AMS is completing verifications of ambient ammonia
                                                                      sensors to gauge how well these technologies provide con-
                                                                      tinuous data on ammonia emissions from agricultural sources.
            ASDWA Survey Results                                      The center is partnering with the U.S. Department of Agricul-
                                                                      ture (USDA) on these verifications and testing was conducted
  ASDWA reports that of the 37 responding states, 26
                                                                      at USDA animal feeding operation facilities. The verification
  states use the ETV DWS Center protocols and test plans
  for verification of drinking water treatment equipment              reports for these ammonia sensors will be completed in 2004.
  performance for surface water, and 24 states use them
  for groundwater. ASDWA also notes that states have                  Mercury Continuous Emission Monitors. Mercury CEMs pro-
  used the ETV verification reports in a variety of ways              vide mercury concentration measurements, which are neces-
  for surface water system applications:                              sary to gain a better understanding of mercury emission
       •    24 states use ETV reports to reduce frequency/            sources, transport, and fate in the environment. AMS has com-
            length of site-specific pilot testing;                    pleted two phases of verification testing of mercury CEMs and
       •    13 states use ETV reports as prerequisite to              is currently planning a third verification test. Phase I testing,
            consideration of the technology; and
                                                                      conducted in partnership with the Massachusetts Department
       •    15 states use ETV data as the primary source
                                                                      of Environmental Protection, verified the performance of CEMs
            of information for decision-making.
                                                                      to measure mercury in flue gases. The center recently com-
  Similar use levels were reported for groundwater sys-
                                                                      pleted a phase II evaluation of CEMs to measure mercury emis-
  tems. ASDWA notes that “[The] ETV drinking water
  initiative . . . is an effective and useful tool to attain          sions at the Toxic Substances Control Act Incinerator at the
  a more streamlined approach to technology applica-                  East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, TN. AMS is cur-
  tions” and “in a relatively short time frame, state                 rently planning and soliciting technology vendors for a phase
  programs have significantly increased their awareness               III verification test of mercury CEMs at a coal-fired power plant.
  and use of protocols and test plans.”8                                   In addition to the testing of mercury CEMs, AMS and other
                                                                      ETV centers have conducted or are planning to conduct mul-
                                                                      tiple rounds of verifications for 12 technology categories across

                                                                                                                                  May 2004        EM        39
EM          Feature

the program, indicating continued vendor demand for and
                                                                    Table 4. Technology categories with multiple rounds of ETV testing.
perceived value of verification. Table 4 highlights verification
testing categories for which multiple rounds of testing have        Center/Pilot                       Technology Category
been conducted by the different centers and pilot programs.
                                                                    Advanced Monitoring                Mercury continuous emission monitors (CEMs)
Homeland Security Water Monitoring Technologies. AMS has            Systems Center                     Nitric oxide/nitrogen oxides (NO/NOx)
been conducting verification activities for technologies appli-                                         portable analyzers
cable to meeting U.S. homeland security needs for protecting                                           Optical open-path monitors
                                                                                                       Portable multigas emissions analyzers
drinking water supplies. The center has verified the perfor-
mance of portable cyanide analyzers and rapid toxicity test-
                                                                                                       Arsenic test kits
ing systems, both with water security applications. These were
                                                                                                       Multiparameter water quality probes
the first two rounds of verifications for homeland security to
                                                                                                       Groundwater sampling devices
be conducted by the ETV program, and the verifications were                                            Lead-in-dust detection technologies
completed within an unusually fast six-month time frame.                                               Explosives detection devices
The AMS stakeholders have prioritized immunoassay and rapid         Air Pollution Control              Baghouse filtration products
polymerase chain reaction screening methods for biotoxins,          Technology Center                  Paint overspray arrestors
pathogens, and/or weaponized agents as the next technology          P2 Coatings and Coating            Innovative liquid coatings
categories for verification.5                                       Equipment Pilot

               Building Decontamination
In 2002, ETV further expanded its role in the innovative tech-     This center, which is operated by Battelle under EPA’s direction,
nology verification arena by establishing a new center, the        focuses exclusively on verifying the performance of technolo-
ETV Building Decontamination Technology (BDT) Center.              gies designed to decontaminate public buildings that have been

40     EM    May 2004
contaminated with biological or chemical warfare agents. The         were pending. ETV vendors report that they are using ETV
goal of this effort is to generate objective performance data so     information in marketing their verified products; 40 vendors
facility managers, first responders, and other technology buy-       have had multiple technologies verified by the ETV program;
ers and users can make informed, and sometimes critical, pur-        and 75% of the technology vendors surveyed during the
chase and application decisions. Currently, three verifications      program’s pilot period (1995–2000) indicated that they would
are expected to be completed by this center in 2004. These           submit another technology for ETV verification.4 As the 2003
technologies use gaseous hydrogen peroxide, formaldehyde,            ASDWA survey and other results indicate, ETV’s products are
and chloride dioxide gas to decontaminate building surfaces.         being used by state and other government agencies to re-
The target agents include Bacillus anthracis (spores), nerve agent   duce pilot testing, support permit decisions, and obtain air
VX, nerve agent GD (soman), and sulfur mustard agent HD.5            emission reduction credits for state implementation plans.
                                                                     Both the ETV program and the protocols it produces serve as
                 Pollution Prevention (P2)                           standards for verifying technology performance, both nation-
One of three pilot programs in P2 technology verification,           ally and internationally. The past nine years have been a suc-
originally initiated under the ETV program, continues to op-         cessful and prolific period for the program. ETV’s current focus
erate. The P2 Coatings and Coating Equipment Pilot (CCEP),           promises to further elevate the program’s role as the interna-
operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC),               tional leader in innovative technology verification.
verifies commercial-ready coatings and coating equipment
that have the potential to prevent pollution. Innovative coat-       REFERENCES
ings are environmentally friendly by virtue of their com-            1.  EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program; EPA/600/F-03/008;
                                                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
position or their curing processes. P2 CCEP is currently                 ment, Cincinnati, OH, November 2003.
                                                                     2. Environmental Technology Verification Program: Verification Strategy; EPA/
developing protocols for testing of UV fluorescent coatings              600/K-96/003; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and UV curable coatings. Innovative equipment generates less             and Development, Washington, DC, February 1997.
                                                                     3. Review of EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program; EPA/SAB/
pollution by expanding the use of innovative coatings or by              EEC/00/012; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory
                                                                         Board, Environmental Engineering Committee, Technology Evaluation
applying coatings more efficiently. Powder coatings processes,           Subcommittee, Washington, DC, August 16, 2000.
high transfer efficiency paint spray guns, high-volume/low-          4. Vendor Survey Report for EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
                                                                         Program Pilot Period, draft. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
pressure paint spray guns, laser-targeted paint application              tion Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, by
devices, and surface pretreatment technologies are only some             ICF Consulting, March 2002.
                                                                     5. EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program for Homeland Security;
of the technology types that have been prioritized for verifica-         EPA/600/F-04/016; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
                                                                         search and Development, Cincinnati, OH, January 2004.
tion by this pilot program.12                                        6. The Monitor—The Newsletter of the ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems
                                                                         (AMS) Center, Battelle, Columbus, OH, September 2002.
                                                                     7. Using DWSRF Funds to Comply with the New Arsenic Rule; EPA/816/F-02/
CONCLUSION                                                               004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater and
                                                                         Drinking Water, Washington, DC, March 2002.
The ETV program has produced an expansive record of ac-              8. O’Grady, B. ASDWA, Washington, DC. Personal communication, Febru-
complishment by partnering with public and private sector                ary 13, 2004.
                                                                     9. Pearson, D. PCI Membrane System Inc., Milford, OH. Personal commu-
individuals and organizations to generate objective informa-             nication, February 10, 2004.
tion that is responsive to the needs of the environmental tech-      10. Latimer, G. Kinetico Inc., Newbury, OH. Personal communication, Feb-
                                                                         ruary 12, 2004.
nology marketplace. The program’s collaborative nature and           11. Environmental Technology Verification Program Quarterly Report—October 2003;
                                                                         EPA/600/R-03/146; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
successes have also allowed it to quickly fill an important role         search and Development, Cincinnati, OH, October 2003.
in homeland security verification, that is, to obtain and pro-       12. Environmental Technology Verification Program—P2, Recycling, and Waste
                                                                         Treatment Pilots; Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Johnstown, PA,
vide critical information to end users on the performance of             September 2003.
technologies for protecting water resources and buildings. It
has also allowed the program to continue to verify a large num-
ber of technologies that address important environmental              About the Authors
issues at a cost that is affordable for vendors, many of them         Evelyn Hartzell is an environmental engineer with EPA’s ETV pro-
small businesses. In fact, ETV verification organizations report      gram in Cincinnati, OH. A graduate of Ohio State University, with a
                                                                      B.S. degree in civil engineering, Hartzell has 13 years of experience
that approximately 65% of the vendors with verified tech-
                                                                      supporting EPA efforts, with an emphasis on innovative technology
nologies are small businesses.
                                                                      evaluation/verification. She can be reached at phone: 1-513-569-
    To date, ETV has verified 261 innovative technologies and
                                                                      7728; e-mail: Abby Waits is a biologist,
developed 78 testing protocols. Vendor demand for verification        also with EPA’s ETV program. A graduate of Miami University of
continues to remain strong and ETV is on track to complete            Ohio, with a B.S. degree in zoology and botany, Waits has two years
90 protocols and 300 verifications by 2005. As of the end of          of experience working for EPA in technology verification. She can
2003, more than 100 technologies were in the process of               be reached at phone: 1-513-569-7884; e-mail:
being verified and another 100 applications for verification

                                                                                                                           May 2004     EM       41

Shared By: